Sweet Nothing in My Ear

I feel the movie represented the Deaf and Cochlear Implant cultures pretty much in perspective. I myself had an overwhelming decision two years ago to decide of I really wanted a CI myself. I came to terms in my choices and possibilities, even tho, I lost my hearing at an early age of 3, than a year later in my other ear.

Marlee is a great Actress, she's done things well and the work she performs in movies and television today.

Sweet Nothings In My Ear - tells the story of many deaf and hard of hearing in today's world where technology can replace one's hearing to almost normalcy as it can be. In the past year since my own surgery, I've become accustomed to sounds I remember hearing as a child, my life changed forever, once I told my audiologist to flip the switch on the computer to turn the processor on - 40 years of amazement filled not only mine, but my mother's eyes with tears of a flowing river you've not seen in many years of life.

I still have the residual hearing in my left ear today, I lost all the remaining hearing I had in my right ear, over 10 years ago and I never wore a hearing aid again in that ear, until I had my Cochlear Implant surgery last year and the rest is history in the making. I'm able to hear sounds I've not been able to hear for over 35 to 40 years at such normal ranges of hearing.

The CI itself almost restores one's hearing, but this is as close to what it can get technology-wise to restore one's hearing in a pinch.

Each person that has had the surgery either has an amazing story to tell after years of being silenced by sounds of the past. If it ain't been for my late grandfather's efforts to try to get my hearing restored as I was younger, he'd probably agree with me today, that history was in the making in our family.

The story is powerful enough to compile what families go through wanting them to what's best for their own children, even tho, they may not be at an age to understand what a Cochlear Implant can do, but the benefits are there, as for other's its either a wait and see process for them.

I believe, one day, science will be able to restore one's hearing without the benefits of a cochlear implant - its only a matter of time, when it will happen in the future.

We get nice close-ups of people's faces for minutes at a time. Every once in a while you can see a finger or hand flit by. For a film in which the standard mode of communication is American Sign Language, shouldn't you keep the signed conversation on-screen? Also, were the actors specifically directed to act deadpan? I have seen Marlee Matlin act very expressively before, so some other force must have been at work. During scenes of intense argument and emotion, even depicting a turning point for some of the characters, we have minutes of camera switches between characters' faces. No signing visible on screen. No facial expression to tell you who's angry, who's hurt, who's sympathetic, who cares.

Adam is eight years old. He gradually lost his hearing when he was four, and he has not spoken in years. His father Dan is in public relations and about to be promoted to vice president, and his mother Laura, who is deaf, teaches math at a school for the deaf.

The movie begins in a courtroom. We later learn the parents are in court to determine who will get custody of Adam. Through flashbacks we learn what led to the dispute. After an introduction to the world Adam and his mother live in--a performance of "The Wizard of Oz" at their school, with parents applauding differently than those of us who hear would--Adam has an accident while playing outside and ends up in the emergency room. The doctor informs Dan that Adam might be a candidate for a cochlear implant, which would give him some hearing.

Laura resists the idea of letting Adam hear. She does not consider herself disabled, and unlike Adam, she has no memory of actually hearing. Laura and her parents--also deaf--accept the way they are and have no desire to change, and they don't like the idea of Adam being alienated from them. They don't even like it when he starts speaking instead of using sign language like they do.

Reluctantly, Laura goes along with the idea of investigating the procedure for Adam. But she never really accepts the idea, and the dispute eventually threatens the couple's future together.

I had a hard time understanding what was going on. Marlee Matlin cannot talk like people who can hear, and yet her words are spoken perfectly. I later realized, when her character was signing but not talking as the couple ate with hearing friends, that we were hearing an "interpreter for the hearing." I suppose that was better than having subtitles, which I prefer not to have to read. But the actress who speaks Laura's words has the stiffness characteristic of celebrities or experts playing themselves, at least at first. The interpreters for Noah Valencia (Adam), and Ed Waterstreet and Phyllis Frelich (Laura's parents), do a much better job.

Matlin herself does a fine job. I have to evaluate her on her facial expressions, and she has such a pretty face to look at anyway. Noah speaks a couple of times and does a very good job; after researching the movie I found he is actually deaf, as are Waterstreet and Frelich, who also do well. Waterstreet particularly excels in communicating the pain Laura's father feels about the prejudice the hearing world seems to feel toward his culture, the pain of feeling like this might hurt his relationship with Adam if Adam can hear.

Jeff Daniels also does a good job, and so do the actors playing the lawyers for both sides, and the judge. There is a hearing-impaired psychologist whose voice we actually hear; she talks like Matlin does but enunciates quite well. Notice I said hearing-impaired: when the term "deaf" is used in this movie, it refers to those who have no hearing at all.

The movie teaches a lot about how the deaf regard their culture, a lot I didn't know. I would have assumed people would want to improve their situation if they could. But this movie presents the point of view that the deaf don't want to be "cured." They have ways of compensating for what they can't find out in the ways that we who hear can. They can do anything, this movie tells us. I don't know that I would agree, but I certainly have a better understanding now.

The fact that interpreters rather than subtitles were used means a person would not have to know how to read to watch this movie. So that brings up this point: is it appropriate for kids? There's nothing offensive about it, though the themes and discussions are a little intense. Perhaps older children can watch it. Kids Adam's age could probably watch it.

Fabulous film dealing with the problems of the deaf.

A family is almost destroyed by the conflicting parents of a deaf child. The father, who can hear, wants his son to have a cochlear implant and the mother, who is deaf, is against this.

Jeff Daniels is absolutely fantastic as the father. I have followed his career and am always amazed that this fine actor has been relegated to such miserable parts and films since playing Shirley MacLaine's ill-fated son-in-law in the memorable "Terms of Endearment."

Marlee Matlin is a terrific actress and she is in fine form as the mother.

We learn that deaf people have a culture of their own and we see how other children can be cruel to a deaf child.

Many of our deaf people wish to cling to this culture that they feel will be threatened by these implants.

This is definitely a mesmerizing film which is not to be missed.

I found the following comment on a popular deaf message board run by Amy Cohen, "Deaf World As Eye See It, Bittersweet History of Sweet Nothing In My Ear" and couldn't agree more:

"The choice to voice-over the signing in the Hallmark Production reminded me of old Disney movies in which you would hear the interior monologue of what the pet dog was thinking. Really, what a poor choice on so many levels. Aside from the insult to the Deaf Community, it just didn't work dramatically at all. It was laughable and it made deaf people feel like lesser people. Wow."

What a shame. 20 years ago CBS, the same network, subtitled an episode of "Beauty and the Beast" which starred Terrylene, a deaf actress, along with nine other deaf actors. It worked wonderfully and received a lot of attention and respect for doing so. How far have we regressed since then? How did the deaf who were involved in this production allow this to happen?

The whole point of the movie is lost when the remarkable beauty of sign language, which arises out of its SILENT- VISUALITY is shamefully undercut by SOUND-VOICES and camera frames that chop off the hands. How much longer will the ignorance continue?